Ron Paul's Reagan, Redux (UPDATE: Rick Perry Reportedly Grabs Paul By the Wrist and Gives Him a What-for)

As telegraphed in my column of yesterday, Texas Gov. Rick Perry attempted to bust Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) at last night's GOP Reagan Library debate over Paul's noisome noisy* resignation from Reagan's GOP in 1987. Here's how the exchange went:

PERRY: Speaking of letters, I was more interested in the one that you wrote to Ronald Reagan back and said I'm going to quit the party because of the things you believe in.

PAUL: Oh, I need an answer on that.

(LAUGHTER)

(CROSSTALK)

HARRIS: You've got a 30-second rebuttal, Congressman.

(CROSSTALK)

PAUL: I strongly supported Ronald Reagan. I was one of four in Texas -- one of four members of Congress that supported Reagan in '76. And I supported him all along, and I supported his -- his -- all his issues and all his programs.

But in the 1980s, we spent too much, we taxed too much, we built up our deficits, and it was a bad scene. Therefore, I support the message of Ronald Reagan. The message was great. But the consequence, we have to be honest with ourselves. It was not all that great. Huge deficits during the 1980s, and that is what my criticism was for, not for Ronald Reagan's message. His message is a great message.

WILLIAMS: Funny thing about the mail. It kind of tends to live on forever.

I'll link it again: Reason's classic 1975 Q&A with Reagan, featuring the famous quote "I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism."

* Thanks to commenter Ellen Evans for informing me that my four-decade assumption that "noisome" = "noisy" is in fact wildly incorrect.

** UPDATE: Whoa–commenter Charles points us to this Reuters picture and accompanying reporting from the International Business Times that "during a commercial break, Perry walked up to Paul's podium, physically grabbed Paul's wrist, and pointed at Paul's face with his other hand":

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    More important than Reagan:

    The Rugby World Cup starts tomorrow.

  • Montani Semper Liberi||

    Why do they invite so many teams when only like 7 countries give a shit about rugby?

  • ||

    Grow the game etc, and Samoa etc are rather good at the sport (they beat Australia this year).

    Teams like Georgia are now supplying pro players to top French and other European club teams.

  • ||

    In the words of Norville Barnes, "Goooooooooo Eagles!!!"

  • ||

    Or when you play Russia, "WOLVERINES!"

  • ||

    Sorry, I'm a fan of Red Dawn, but when someone says Wolverines, I reflexively scream, "SUCK."

    O-H...

  • Rev. Blue Moon||

    I-O!

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    F-U

    (Buckeyes in general, not sloopyinca in particular)

  • Colonel_Angus||

    Seven countries plus every American prep-frat faggot. Also, lacross.

  • affenkopf||

    Yawn. Who cares. The NFL starts today. Much fore fun. And I say that as a European (of course the start of the CL-group next week is even better).

  • Ted S.||

    I want to know how Borisov and Plzen ended up in different pots when the draw was made. Unsurprisingly, both ended up in the same group with Barcelona.

  • ||

    NFL? Ew.

  • STONEROCK||

    YES!

  • Virginia||

    Tonga v NZ tomorrow.

  • Nice!||

    Threadjack in the first comment!
    Who says libertarians can't focus?

  • Colin||

    It's disappointing to see Paul go negative. He always seemed to be above that before, and it's not gonna help him.

  • tarran||

    When he exposes the degree of fecality in the history of the other candidates, he is doing the U.S. people a favor; it's vital that every American understand exactly how awful the establishment republicans are.

    Unfortunately, the duopoly being what it is, people may, due to the Obama administration's awfulness, forget how awful the Republicans are, that they support many of Obama's awful policies, only to a slightly lesser degree.

  • ||

    He's doing it because he's not just symbolically running this time.

  • ||

    So he's not symbolically losing this time?

  • ||

    It's not like he's being totally ignored or has some awesome competition. I wouldn't count him out just yet, though he remains a long shot.

  • CatoTheElder||

    I think Ron Paul really, really doesn't want Perry to get the nomination because the last person he wants to be President is another swaggering, phony conservative Texas politician.

  • ||

    Mr. Welch, do you really mean to characterize Dr. Paul's resignation as "having an extremely offensive smell?" - the definition of noisome.

  • Matt Welch||

    Updated the post, thank you.

  • ||

    Since "noisome" is used in a rather niggardly fashion, the mistake is understandable.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    This discussion leaves me bemused.

  • MiNGe||

    With gems like this I don't wonder why the right makes so little headway in the black community.

  • djk||

    niggardly fashion? Cheap, miserly?

  • ||

    thank you. I do not have the courage to use that word in public anymore, but I like to see people keeping it alive.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    i lol'd at your asterisk

  • tarran||

    I thought noisome was more appropriate. Frankly, Ron Paul calling out Reagan as being the big, fat, big-government loving hypocrite he was is something the Republican establishment finds about as welcome as poo in the punchbowl.

  • O2||

    dont forget labor leader, democrat, & astrology w nancy!

  • MNG||

    Where can someone watch the debate? I sat down to watch it last night figuring it would be on around 9 like most debates and it was not...

    How did it go? My concern was the Perry would and will undercut Paul, what with his seeming willingness to take 'Paulian' stances (well, at least rhetorical) on the Fed, social security, etc. Paul needs to do something to differentiate himself from Perry.

    I also heard that Perry may have given Romney what, if Romney has any sense, his one chance and that is social security as an issue. If Romney can position Perry as abolishing ss and himself as conservative in every way that Perry is but not for mucking with ss that could be his chance...

  • PIRS||

    "My concern was the Perry would and will undercut Paul, what with his seeming willingness to take 'Paulian' stances (well, at least rhetorical) on the Fed, social security, etc. Paul needs to do something to differentiate himself from Perry."

    The Gardasill issue can kill** Perry in the primaries if the other candidates handle it correctly. If Perry gets the nomination Obama could use it to kill** Perry in the general.

    ** Rhetorically and politically of course. It now seems we need to clarify any use of this word.

  • PIRS||

    This controversy is magnified my the fact there is much evidence it is unsafe.
    http://vactruth.com/2009/08/24.....mmigrants/

  • ||

    Sorry, you've discredited your position by linking to vactruth. Any site that praises Andrew Wakefield is full of bunk.

  • MNG||

    Was this discussed in the debate last night? I agree if used correctly it could be important, though I'm not sure someone like Romney could use it considering his health care mandate could be used in rebuttal.

  • PIRS||

    It was discussed yes. Unfortunately Romney said that "I'm sure he had good intentions". Others were more sane in their response.

  • MNG||

    Like I said, I don't think Romney can say much on that unless he wants a full plate of Romneycare served back to him in rebuttal.

  • Zuo||

    A question you hypocrites have yet to answer: why aren't you out shitting a brick about mandated MMR, tuberculosis, hepatitus, polio, and meningitus vaccines. What makes HPV vaccines sooooooooooo different?

    OMG evil politician whats to vaccinate ourrr childrunzzzz! Another vaccine on top of the 5 or 6 they've been mandated to take for DECADES! Sharpen the rakes and tighten the rolling pins!

  • ||

    Being innoculated against cervical cancer will turn all those nice little Baptist girls down in Texas into horny little whoring dervishes. Didn't you know that?

    And then there's freedom, of course. Nothing screams freedom like getting preventable cervical cancer.

  • ||

    And of course, a vaccine is the ONLY way to prevent it.

  • Atanarjuat||

    Being innoculated against cervical cancer will turn all those nice little Baptist girls down in Texas into horny little whoring dervishes. Didn't you know that?

    Ok, now I'm for the vaccine being mandatory.

  • mustard||

    MMR, mumps, rubella, etc are spread by breathing and other sorts of incidental contact. While it's sometimes necessary to compromise one's libertarian principles/utility rules with the realities of living in a community with other people, one should make sure that it's only done when really necessary.

    I personally think meningitis vaccine requirements are over the line too, since it requires putting one's mucus membranes in contact with someone else's salvia.

    HPV is totally over the line as transmission is only possible through extremely specific and virtually always intentional contact. (Yeah yeah yeah I know rape is possible, but it's rare. It's possible to inject someone with Ebola against their will too but we don't force vaccinations for that)

  • MNG||

    Hey, I found a replay of the debate:

    http://mhutch.blogspot.com/201.....ebate.html

  • ||

    I find it astonishing that Perry is harping on his resignation. It's like he's pitching softballs right into Paul's wheelhouse.

    "You blasphemed against the sacred Ronald Reagan."

    "I've been preaching the message of freedom and small government for over three decades, and unlike the rest of the GOP, I actually mean it."

  • MNG||

    Just yesterday on NPR they had a labor historian who was talking about how Reagan was much less hostile to labor than the current GOP mindset...It was a lot of this stuff that we saw with Rehnquist where liberals wax nostalgic about someone they hated a great deal at the time, but there is something to the argument that Saint Reagan was not quite as faithful to current GOP ideas as the GOP devotees would like to think.

  • ChrisO||

    I'm enjoying watching leftists pretend they always really respected Reagan, as well as try and invent ways to characterize him as a stealth liberal.

    He was so friendly to organized labor that he broke PATCO with a smile on his face. Still one of the ballsiest things a president has done, politically speaking.

  • ChrisO||

    I should limit that last comment to the last 40 years or so.

  • MNG||

    The idea was that confronting PATCO over an illegal strike was very different than confronting public employee bargaining in general.

    But yeah, it's silly to see liberals wax nostalgic for Reagan, like they do for Rehnquist or the way some conservatives do for Clinton, arguing "they really were'nt so bad" when at the time they treated them like Satan on steroids.

  • ||

    The idea was that confronting PATCO over an illegal strike was very different than confronting public employee bargaining in general.

    Sure. For being against public employee bargaining in general, you have to go to guys like FDR. Or more recently, Douglas Wilder (D) of Virginia, who signed the bill banning all public employee collective bargaining in the state.

  • MNG||

    That's right, you have to go back 60 years ago or to a Southern right to work state.

  • ||

    Actually, MiNGe, he banned it in the Commonwealth in 1993. Right after Clinton's ascendancy to the throne and with a Team Blue House of Delegates and State Senate.

  • ||

    MNG did say "or," I believe.

    Doesn't matter, MNG, about going back 60 years or to the black Democratic governor of a Southern state, considering the overheated rhetoric about how banning public employee collective bargaining is evil.

    If it's merely a bad idea, then that argument of yours would have some credit. But the union forces insist on their crazy rhetoric, unlike more restrained groups like the Tea Party.

  • ||

    But if we're going to debate it on purely practical grounds, rather than as some kind of right that it's evil to lack, then the policy is clearly correct IMO but in any case you're bringing it into the acceptable bounds of policy choices.

    There are excellent theoretical and practical reasons to ban public employee collective bargaining. Progressives praise the unions in Germany for being innovative and flexible on work hours-- but they only do so because they have a motive to preserve the profits and health of the company, in which they have a stake. Government has no such control-- losing money can simply be made up by taxes. (Of course, we bail out private companies too, so GM management and labor can both agree to screw over taxpayers too.)

  • MNG||

    "There are excellent theoretical and practical reasons to ban public employee collective bargaining."

    And excellent reasons not to.

    First off, government can be an overbearing employer as easily, indeed more easily than, a private one. It's interesting I'd have to lecture a libertarian on the idea of government being potentially very nasty indeed. It's that which public unions largely formed to combat.

    Secondly, since administrations can change and budget woes almost always mean hits on public employee benefits there is certainly an incentive on their part not to kill the goose so to speak.

    But of course, this is all about politics. Republicans like yourself don't like public unions because they support Democrats politically. If it was about the public coffers you'd be just as adamant about public contractors, yet we wait...

  • MNG||

    If you think the 1940's or Southern states are models then I guess you have a point...Both of those places had ideas that were both bad and evil wouldn't you say?

  • MNG||

    For the record though, I don't think I would classify a contrary stance on collective bargaining "evil", that's silly.

  • ||

    For the record though, I don't think I would classify a contrary stance on collective bargaining "evil", that's silly.

    Yes, but have you sufficiently condemned the overheated rhetoric of people in Wisconsin and in unions who are allied with you on this position? Isn't that the standard? ;)

  • MNG||

    "or", what does it mean, how does it work?

    you have to go back 60 years ago or to a Southern right to work state.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    The pay for private-sector union members isn't forcibly extracted from taxpayers.
    That's the difference.
    The rest is just blah-blah-blah.

  • Tony||

    Completely separate issue from the right of public workers to unionize. Either there's free assembly and collective bargaining, or there's not. Who's paying the wages is irrelevant.

  • sarcasmic||

    The issue with public sector unions is coercion.

    Private sector employers cannot coerce their customers into giving them more money.

    The public sector's employer can.

  • sarcasmic||

    Free assembly applies to the people.

    Public workers are government, not the people.

  • ||

    Yeah, that was my bad, MiNGe. I misread your post.

    Either way, when are labor leaders going to vilify a black Governor of a state 100% controlled by Team Blue over his actions and stop berating some the currently powerless crop of candidates on their perceived stances and hollow rhetoric?

  • CatoTheElder||

    "the way some conservatives do for Clinton, arguing "they really were'nt so bad" when at the time they treated them like Satan on steroids."

    I resemble that remark ... though I'm libertarian.

    Satan on steroids isn't as bad as Satan on crack, meth, PCP, and steroids.

  • Brett L||

    Wasn't Reagan the president of SAG during the 50s? Seems like he'd have some sympathy for organized labor or else try to nuke it from

  • Brett L||

    *orbit. Fuck my iphone

  • MNG||

    According to this author he oversaw extending public employee bargaining as governor of Cali.

  • ChrisO||

    That's true. I'd forgotten about that. He was also a New Dealer and a Democrat originally, so it's certainly not unlikely he had more sympathy for organized labor than many Republicans. I think his opinion may have "evolved" some the longer he went on as a Republican, since he had to confront the knee-jerk hostility of Big Labor towards the GOP.

  • MNG||

    Iirc he got the endorsement of the Teamsters in one of his presidential runs.

  • ||

    George H. W. Bush did, after they polled their members the executive board went along.

  • Brett L||

    Sure. He'd probably also seen some of the decent things unions do in the day to day life of union members. Stuntmen and grips can get hurt pretty badly. Being in a union is great if you're hurt on the job. No question.

  • tarran||

    The Teamsters and a couple of the oterh unions supported reagan as a big f you to Carter, who had backed Kennedy's deregulation of interstate trucking and the airlines among other things.

    It's ironic considering the mythology surrounding Carter and Reagan's legacy.

  • Ted S.||

    He also helped break the communist-infiltrated unions that were trying to take the place of the traditional Hollywood unions, during the shooting of Night Unto Night (a doomed film in a bunch of ways).

  • creech||

    Unfortunately, I missed the debates but saw and heard commentary this morning. One caller on a talk show said Paul "came across like the crazy uncle in the attic" and the host agreed. Was Paul that bad or is this just spin from the Paul haters?

  • sarcasmic||

    Yes.

  • ||

    What you did there? I saw it.

  • it was a bad scene man||

    I thought he did pretty well. The main contrast though was the slickness factor. Paul's lack of charisma didn't stack up too well versus Perry and Romney.

    He hardly said anything crazy at all. And remember this is in a field where Romney has to spend half his breath defending Romneycare and Perry has to defend his vaccination clusterfuck.

  • ||

    Charisma is worth jackshit in being a good president. The media needs to stop parroting the tired memes about "electability", "gravitas", and whatever other nonsubstantive standards they think are valid substitutes for ethics, management skills, knowledge, and ability.

  • sarcasmic||

    Unfortunately charisma is not jackshit in getting elected.

    There are a lot of idiots out there who cast their vote based upon perceived popularity (I'm not gonna vote for someone who I think might lose - der dee der der), likability, and yes charisma.

  • ||

    I blame the media. They made such a big deal about Kennedy on TV and have kept focusing on charismatic and "electable" candidates that it's become the accepted norm.

    People are going to find some basis for their votes. If substance isn't part of what they're hearing about, then they'll retreat to less important characteristics. Like the fact that the candidate is black, for instance, or a woman, or looks "presidential."

  • sarcasmic||

    I wasn't around at the time, but I am told that if you heard the Kennedy / Nixon debate on the radio you'd say Nixon won, if you saw Kennedy's smiling face on tv you'd say he won.

    Charisma. Not requirement for the job, but definitely a requirement for the election.

  • CatoTheElder||

    Charisma and a good head of hair. Remember Nixon already had a receding hair line.

  • The Scenetuation||

    Yeah just noting the talent up on the stage. Doesn't necessarily mean those talents have application to the real world. You have two guys who look and sound like the result of billion dollar genetic research projects to produce the perfect candidate. And then the world's best-looking 55 year-old woman. Then Gingrich who wins every debate if you only have audio.

    Oh Paul also made a point of being not-crazy when he talked about how you can't just change things overnight when people have come to depend on govt programs etc but you needed to gradually transition.

  • I'm voting for Emily Ekins||

    Look, the president is going to make up about 10-15% of any TV network's programming so they are damn well going to pick the candidate who will make people turn off their sets the least.

    And people are not going to vote for someone they don't want to see on television.

  • Doug||

    +1 for the handle.

  • djk||

    ? Did happen to witness the last election?

  • crazy uncle in the attic||

    He hardly said anything crazy at all.

    Well, there was this...

    I'll tell you how we should do it. We're spending -- believe it or not, this blew my mind when I read this -- $20 billion a year for air conditioning in Afghanistan and Iraq in the tents over there and all the air conditioning. Cut that $20 billion out, bring in -- take $10 off the debt, and put $10 into FEMA or whoever else needs it, child health care or whatever. But I'll tell you what, if we did that and took the air conditioning out of the Green Zone, our troops would come home, and that would make me happy.

    this...

    you can buy a gallon of gasoline today for a silver dime. A silver dime is worth $3.50. It's all about inflation and too many regulations.

    and this...

    I think this fence business is designed and may well be used against us and keep us in. In economic turmoil, the people want to lead with their capital. And there's capital controls and there's people control. So, every time you think of fence keeping all those bad people out, think about those fences maybe being used against us, keeping us in.

    Man, I wish Ron would just polish it up a bit for these things. And I wish Gary Johnson was up there to say some of the same shit with a bit more finesse thereby taking the edge off the "crazy"...

  • cynical||

    I've always thought that about the border walls.

  • Apogee||

    And I wish Gary Johnson was up there to say some of the same shit with a bit more finesse

    That's exactly why GJ isn't there.

  • ||

    There's nothing wrong with the comment about silver dimes, it's just that people aren't going to know what the hell he's talking about.

    I'll admit that the first one was phrased terribly and last one came off pretty paranoid.

  • yeah||

    Nothing crazy about the inflation point.

    And as for crazy uncles: John McCain.

    The air conditioning factoid IS mind blowing. Can that be true? Maybe its million not billion. That would be insane.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    The air conditioning isn't for the soldiers, it's for all the computers they brought along with them.

  • Zuo||

    Ron Paul: "Ekk ehh ukkh we... uhh I, I, I... looook!, we can't , we can't just keep, look! I, I just, I think *finally insert whatever his point is here* ..."

    Yeah doesn't just look crazy and incoherent. It WAS.

    But the moderators were fucking assholes the way the condesended to him. Blatantly nterrupting the old bastard mid sentence, then he objects, and the sneeringly say "oh ok, you go ahead and finish your little sentence. What was it you wanted to say so badly?"

    Those guys were excrement smears 3 feet long. Also with their "hey Perry, how do you explain the fact that Texans are degenerate retards."

  • Atanarjuat||

    the moderators were fucking assholes

    Pretty much. It pissed me off that they asked everyone else softball policy questions like "How much do you hate Obamacare?" and then turned to Paul and said "Do you really expect pilots to supply their own air traffic controllers?" (Brian Williams actually said that).

  • ChrisO||

    Yeah, Paul really was that bad, unfortunately. All anyone will take away from this about him will be "air conditioners in Afghanistan" and "border fence to keep us in."

    He's just not a sound bite guy. He wants to give these great, sophisticated explanations, but you cannot do that in 20-second increments.

    His best moment was answering the disaster relief question by pointing out that FEMA didn't exist prior to 1979, and yet the country muddled through somehow.

  • ||

    What we didn't see after the exchange you quoted Mr. Welch was this: "During a commercial break, Perry walked up to Paul's podium, physically grabbed Paul's wrist, and pointed at Paul's face with his other hand."
    http://img.ibtimes.com/www/art.....mber-7.htm

    What do you all make of this?

    Regards,

    Charles

  • Matt Welch||

    Thanks much, updated.

  • robc||

    Assaulting (technically) septugenarians is SOOOOOO presidential.

  • ||

    "Back off man, I'm a governor."

  • Brett L||

    "I heard you said Romney's hair is better. Never say that again."

  • ||

    "Your powers are weak, old man."

  • Apogee||

    +10

  • Bender Bending Rodriguez||

    "You can't win, Rick; if you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine."

  • Zuo||

    "He's repressin' me! Look look! I'm bein' repressed!"

  • ||

    Oppression. Repression is something you do to yourself.

  • hmm ||

    For years I've said the Senate needs a good caning on the floor. Maybe some WWE chair throwing and body slams as well.

  • Abdul||

    Alt-text aside, Ronnie looks like he could out-suave Don Draper in that photo.

    No homo.

  • Hank||

    Which Ronnie?

  • Clark Aspen||

    Did Brian Williams think he was actually making a poignant statement after Paul's statement? Jeez.

  • ||

    Mr. Aspen,

    When I heard Mr. Williams say that, I wondered if he was thinking of the "racist newsletters" in the back of his mind, but decided not to mention them directly.

    Regards,

    Charles

  • smz||

    chuck - you may not want to use your work email. not sure VDOT would think it's cool.

  • ||

    The quote is somewhat out of context; Perry's question about Paul's letter was in response to Paul's question about Perry's letter to Hillary Clinton during the 1993 health care fiasco.

    Personally I thought Williams' line about the mail coming back to haunt you was good.

  • CE||

    Rick Perry's campaign ship was shot full of holes last night and is taking on water.... Time for Sarah Palin to jump into the race so the media can ignore the real grassroots candidate some more.

  • Bee Tagger||

    WILLIAMS: Funny thing about the mail. It kind of tends to live on forever.

    So now we what Brian Williams thinks will happen to the rumored USPS bailout. I'm still unsure if he likes this idea since his wording and tone are ambiguous.

  • ||

    Ron Paul was right to stop supporting Reagan after he broke his campaign vows for smaller government and no borrowing.Heck everyone knows Perry is a snake with boots anyway,just ask a Texan!

  • CatoTheElder||

    The last person this Texan wants in the White House is a swaggering, phony conservative, Texas politician ... unless he can displace Obama.

  • ola||

    Best Paul line of the night for me was when the questioning of Bachmann over her $2.00 gallon of gas promise lead Paul to point out in a true Paulian way that if you had a silver dime, you could still buy a gallon of gas.

  • CatoTheElder||

    The problem is that most Republicans are too clueless to understand what he meant.

  • ||

    Yes, but not just Republicans.

  • A Serious Man||

    I know Matt Welch gets paid to write about it, but these debates are exactly what is wrong with the electoral process. Ron Paul struggled somewhat because he tried to give thoughtful, complex responses in a 90 second window. How the hell can you give a substantial answer in 90 seconds? Debates like these trade thoughtful respones for a contest to see who can get the best soundbite or zinger in.

  • Apogee||

    How the hell can you give a substantial answer in 90 seconds?

    Look, man, they just don't have the time! I mean, after devoting 1000's of hours on a near-hurricane and child murder trial, there's just no time left for these stupid Presidential debates.

  • ||

    You're supposed to adapt to the format. Ron Paul being inflexible is not the fault of the debate format.

    What's the solution, anyway? Commandeer the networks for hours so that RP can blather on and repeat himself 50 times?

  • Invisible Finger||

    How the hell can you give a substantial answer in 90 seconds?

    Nobody watches these things for substance, they watch them to see people squirm. A lotta sick fucks in this country.

  • Max||

    Rick perry and Ron Paul are obviously having a gay lovers' quarrel.

    Rick Perry: I get to be on top tonight. You promised!

    Ron Paul: Okay, but I won't pretend to be Ben Bernanke.

  • Max||

    Rick Perry: Yes you will, you slimy little fuck.

    Ron Paul: Okay, but I won't wear the false beard. Call me a slimy little fuck again.

  • Max||

    Rick Perry: You're a slimy little fuck, you slimy little fuck.

    Ron Paul: Ooooooh!

  • Max||

    Ron Paul: I love it when you talk dirty.

    Rick Perry: I love it when you talk boring.

  • ||

    "during a commercial break, Perry walked up to Paul's podium, physically grabbed Paul's wrist, and pointed at Paul's face with his other hand"

    Rand Paul's dad could totally kick Josh Brolin's dad's ass.

  • Max||

    Ron Paul: The gold standard!

    Rick Perry: You slimy little fuck!

    Rick Perry and Ron Paul: Oooooooh!

  • Max||

    Rick Perry: Bore me!

    Ron Paul: Fuck me!

    Ooooooooh!

  • Max's Penis||

    Please . . . stop . . . I . . . can't . . . take . . . any . . . more

  • Max||

    Rick Perry: What about those newsletters?

    Ron Paul: What about those executions?

    Rick Perry: I'm going to get the whip!

    Ron Paul: I'm going to explain the constitution!

    Ooooooooooooooooh!

  • ChrisO||

    Rick Perry's "alpha male" shtick is so incredibly transparent, that it comes off like a comedy routine. That picture of him with Paul is quite damning.

    I'll be curious to see if the media really does anything with it. They seem almost desperate to whittle the race down to Perry vs. Romney.

  • Max||

    Oh, yeah, the media have just ignored Ron Paul and built up Perry and Romney. If it weren't for media manipulation, Ron Paul would already be President, pigs would fly, shit would taste like chocolate, and ChrisO would have a brain.

  • ChrisO||

    Somebody forgot to take his lithium this morning.

  • ||

    Does Perry have an index finger fetish or something?

    Do a google image search of Rick Perry. It's frightening. Put that thing away before someone gets hurt.

  • Max||

    We know where he puts that finger, too.

  • Michael||

    Damn, you're right. It's almost on par with Kim Jong Il inspecting random things.

  • ||

    Eww, it's his left finger too.

  • ||

    "There's a large sandbag above your head supported by one very thin rope. It'd be a shame if it accidentally snapped, don't you think?"

  • Jim Treacher||

    This is a marked change from all the times Rick Perry grabbed somebody's wrist in a way other than physically.

  • ||

    "You've got a feather on your nose! Let me get it off for you."

  • Bender Bending Rodriguez||

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement